I assume you mean FZ users when you said UZ users. If so, what you said is that rarely does an FZ user take or post stunning pictures even though they may have been posting here for years. Than you ask the FZ users to critique your photos to help you in your goal of acheiving stunning photos rather than the average ones posted here.
OK, they are not stunning.

After showing the 'courniche' for my macro shots in the other post, here they are.

Despite always shot on a hurry (I should have a FZ20 with attached 6T for macros and another one for other shots) with few time tomake creative perspectives (the others walk on), I think I am still improving my macro shots as well as the way to PP them (with Photoshop 7 and several plugins).
The aim is to achieve stunning pictures as those I often see photographed withdSLR plus expensive zooms and, more rarely, by UZ users, some of which have been posting in this forum these years.

No doubt that PP has a big part in it, but I'd like to know from you If you think I have gone too far beyond what can be judged a realistic shoy (i.e. too sharpening, saturation, frames, fake-like effects...).
I might show up some of the untouched originals resized at samesize of the requested picture if you want.

All with FZ20 (with 6T when explicitly stated; also cf. the EXIF data).

#1, with 6T, PP but close to the original in color and saturation. Resized not, cropped

1) I don't consider myself more than an average photographer, if not less.
I am into digital for few more than a year, so my pics could hardly look like pro-ones and I'd neverstate them to be superior to others'.
I have said the shots have been taken hurrily and with few time available for thinking and realizingcreative perspectives.

2) UZ (ultra zoom) cameras are considered (and I agree on this) not only uncomparable in quality to dSLR + good and expensive zooms, but also inferior in picture quality to same price or even lower price (but same resol.)compact cams with 3x or less zoom.

3) The aim I (tried to) express is related with PP, as you'll understand reading the whole post, in which I refer to the "realistic [look of the] shot".
Thus it was all about wanting to achieve the features of dSLR pictures/images (DOF, saturation, noise) with some more PP than usual.
And I was asking if this could have made images look too faked....
or if I could approach a bit of the amazing IMAGE QUALITYof pictures taken with more expensive cameras.

4) With "stunning" photographs, I meant IMAGES LOOKING LIKE THOSE TAKEN WITHdSLR, not looking like Professional photos, which is different if you think about it.

I thought it was implicit or understood that I was dealing with and talking about a methodology to edit images, not the personal photographic skill.

Consequently I was not bashing UZ users (neither FZ, nor Canon, Nikon, Oly or others) as uncapable to take good or excellent pics.
This has to do more with creativity, "eye",technical and artistical skill, and editing skill, than with the model of cameraused.

I see a lot of photos in this forum which IMO could look "technically" better with better PP.
But I am always referring to the way to achieve DOF, to remove noise without decreasing the resolution in areas with fine details, improving colors, contrasts and so on.
I meant that some Ultra ZOom users which has been posting here for yearsARE able to achieve images (always "PIXEL-WISE", nothing more)which have the clean, sharp and colorful look of dSLR ones.
It is obvious that the latter look estetically better because taken with better cams and by persons that are generally into photography from longer time, while most of -not all- digicam and UZ users are into this from 5 years or less, and who have been using Photoshop for years.

Never thought to inquiry about the ability as a photographer, mine or of others.

Sorry for the long reply, I hope I ve made the point clear for it is very late now here in Italy.

If not I ll summarize it tomorrow, but I m sure most of the person who've read my first post have understood what I was talking about.

Francesco Raffaele

PS
Considering that there are person who might misunderstand my average English, I'll try to limit my ownposts to showing photos.

I did misunderstand what you were saying. Don't limit your posts because of my misunderstanding because It was me not you. As for commenting on PP, my skills are very limited so I can't. I need to concentrate on learning the the program I use. You are right someone that is very skilled in PP can do amazing things with pictures.

Great stuff mate, I am a real fan of Number 2. The color and saturation looks really good, very pro like. The question is how did you do it? Could you please share you PP wisdom and possibly the plugins you used.

I used Flaming Pear plugins, which I am really more and more becoming a fan of (and note that I have +280Mb of Photoshop plugins, including the Alien Skin, GE, Virtual Photographer and all theKPT/Metacreations series).

For that pic I used a free plugin, Kyoto color, which is in the "Free plugins" package.
In most of the plugins you have a dice which gives you random combinations of hues, saturation, gamma, lightness... and a small "S" button which randoms the many "blending" modes (more than 50).

Also Aetherize, Organic Edges (pict #6), Mr. Contrast and Super Blade are very fine, but they are not freeware so, after the trial period, you must pay or ... find another way to use them.
They ar really worth (only saw the FLOOD/water creator filter used by members of this forum).

#1, 3, 4, 8, 9 have only the classical PP (contrasts, sharpening, NR regulations, and a bit of saturation) remaining close to the original.

#2 and 5 are "possible" variations:with which I mean that, if you don't know the original you may plainly assume these were the original light situations.

#7 (leaving # 6 out) is extreme PP, for which I mean that the heavy PP makes it clear that the original was certainly different for that. This falls more in the cathegory of artistical situations and Photoshop Art (with no pretention to declare myself an artist) than sheer Photography.

--- --- ---

What I meant in the first post, is that, although dSLR users have surely more flexibility with their pro cameras, they are generally more experienced in image editing too (for most of us UZ users come from P&amp;S or however are from few time into digital photo) so their pictures may have a fantastic look (as many galleries in PBase) but several of those pics have great Editing skill behind them, atthe boundary between what I defined "possible" and faithful to the original, if not more extreme...

In my case, being a (digital) amateur photographer for less than 2 years, but being into photoshop from about 8-9 years, I was wondering If I can achieve a nice look to my edited images (which as I sain in my reply to Tcook is somethingwhichalso some UZ and compact cam users are very skilled in) or if also those which I defined "possible" shots might look to PPed...